Medieval Facts & Myths: Was Prince John really wicked?

Most of us know Prince John as the iconic villain of the Robin Hood legend—the conniving younger brother who oppresses England while King Richard is away at war. But was John truly a wicked tyrant in real life?

The answer is more complicated—and more revealing—than the legend suggests.

There are, in fact, two enduring myths about John Lackland, the youngest son of King Henry II and brother of the famed Richard the Lionheart.

The First Myth: The Villain

Originating in the Robin Hood tradition, this version of Prince John portrays him as a greedy, scheming ruler who exploits loyal subjects while his heroic brother fights abroad. This John is petty, vindictive, and corrupt—a man unfit to rule, sustained only by fear and opportunism.

It’s a powerful story. And like most powerful stories, it contains a kernel of truth.

The Second Myth: The Administrator

A more modern revision swings the pendulum in the opposite direction. In this telling, John is cast as a capable, if unlucky, ruler—a pragmatic administrator unfairly maligned by propaganda and legend. His financial reforms strengthened royal authority, and his legal innovations helped lay groundwork for England’s future governance. This version argues that John was misunderstood rather than malevolent.

Contemporary accounts describe John as spiteful, suspicious, and cruel. Yet they also note that his flaws were not unusual for medieval monarchs. What made John different was not merely his behavior—but how little legitimacy he commanded while exercising power.

And that distinction matters.

Why John Was Hated

John did not inherit loyalty the way Richard did. Richard was mythologized as a warrior-king; John was perceived as a caretaker who overreached. Without trust, every tax became theft. Every decree felt personal. Authority without legitimacy hardened into resentment.

History can tell us what John did.

It can even tell us why people rebelled.

What it cannot tell us is what it felt like to live under a ruler who never earned loyalty—only compliance.

When Law Loses Legitimacy

History shows that authority without consent does not produce stability—it produces resentment. From royal courts to fractured nations, the pattern repeats: power that cannot earn loyalty relies instead on force, fear, and control.

Where Story Can Go Further

That unanswered question is where historical fiction becomes essential.

In King Robin, Prince John is drawn closer to the darker version of the legend—not as a caricature, but as a ruler consumed by envy, fear, and the knowledge that power alone cannot command devotion. John loathes the novel’s central character, Robert Webber—a celebrated military hero whose growing popularity threatens his fragile authority. At the same time, John seeks to destroy Webber’s secret alter ego—the outlaw whose legend inspires the common people: Robin Hood.

The novel asks a question history leaves open: What happens when resentment finally gains the crown?

Go Deeper into the Story

In King Robin, rebellion succeeds—and the victor must decide what kind of ruler he will become.

If you’re interested in how power curdles when legitimacy is absent, the novel explores the human consequences behind the history.

Go deeper into King Robin →

Medieval Facts & Myths is a blog series featuring KING ROBIN, a novel by R. A. Moss from Beck and Branch Publishers. LEARN MORE or ORDER NOW

KING ROBIN cinematic rights: Explore a surging opportunity.